document_title: Secession in the United States

question_text: when did the 11 states seceded from the union

question_tokens: when did the 11 states seceded from the union

text: Secession in the United States

text: The American Revolution[edit]

text: The Declaration of Independence states:

text: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[2]

text: Historian Pauline Maier argues that this narrative asserted "... the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776"; and notes that Thomas Jefferson's language incorporated ideas explained at length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers including John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke and other English and Scottish commentators, all of whom had contributed to the development of the Whig tradition in eighteenth-century Britain.[2]

text: The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them;[3] then they may defend themselves.[4][5] This reasoning was not original to the Declaration, but can be found in many prior political writings: Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690); the Fairfax Resolves of 1774; Jefferson's own Summary View of the Rights of British America; the first Constitution of Virginia, which was enacted five days prior to the Declaration.[6] and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776):

text: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms ("of Government", editor's addition) to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing ... a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[7]

text: Gordon S. Wood quotes John Adams: "Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government".[8]

text: Civil War era political and legal views on secession[edit]

text: Overview[edit]

text: With origins in the question of states' rights the issue of secession was argued in many forums and advocated from time to time in both the North and South in the decades after adopting the Constitution and before the American Civil War. Historian Maury Klein described the contemporary debate: "Was the Republic a unified nation in which the individual states had merged their sovereign rights and identities forever, or was it a federation of sovereign states joined together for specific purposes from which they could withdraw at any time?"[9] He observed that "the case can be made that no result of the [American Civil] war was more important than the destruction, once and for all . . . of the idea of secession".[10]

text: Historian Forrest McDonald argued that after adopting the Constitution "there were no guidelines, either in theory or in history, as to whether the compact could be dissolved and, if so, on what conditions". However, during "the founding era, many a public figure . . . declared that the states could interpose their powers between their citizens and the power of the federal government, and talk of secession was not unknown". But according to McDonald, to avoid resorting to the violence that had accompanied the Revolution, the Constitution established "legitimate means for constitutional change in the future". In effect, the Constitution "completed and perfected the Revolution".[11]

text: Whatever the intentions of the Founders, threats of secession and disunion were a constant in the political discourse of Americans preceding the Civil War. Historian Elizabeth R. Varon wrote:

text: ... one word [disunion] contained, and stimulated, their [Americans] fears of extreme political factionalism, tyranny, regionalism, economic decline, foreign intervention, class conflict, gender disorder, racial strife, widespread violence and anarchy, and civil war, all of which could be interpreted as God's retribution for America's moral failings. Disunion connoted the dissolution of the republic—the failure of the Founders' efforts to establish a stable and lasting representative government. For many Americans in the North and the South, disunion was a nightmare, a tragic cataclysm that would reduce them to the kind of fear and misery that seemed to pervade the rest of the world. And yet, for many other Americans, disunion served as the main instrument by which they could achieve their political goals.[12]

text: Abandoning the Articles of Confederation[edit]

text: In late 1777 the Second Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation for ratification by the individual states. The confederation government was administered de facto by the Congress under the provisions of the approved (final) draft of the Articles until they achieved ratification—and de jure status—in early 1781. In 1786 delegates of five states (the Annapolis Convention) called for a convention of delegates in Philadelphia to amend the Articles—which would require unanimous consent of the thirteen states.

text: The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention convened and deliberated from May to September 1787. Instead of pursuing their official charge they returned a draft (new) Constitution, proposed for constructing and administering a new federal—later also known as "national"—government. They further proposed that the draft Constitution not be submitted to the Congress (where it would require unanimous approval of the states); instead that it be presented directly to the states for ratification in special ratification conventions, and that approval by a minimum of nine state conventions would suffice to adopt the new Constitution and initiate the new federal government; and that only those states ratifying the Constitution would be included in the new government. (For a time, eleven of the original states operated under the Constitution without two non-ratifying states, Rhode Island and North Carolina.) In effect, the delegates proposed to abandon and replace the Articles of Confederation rather than amend them.[a]

text: Because the Articles had specified a "perpetual union", various arguments have been offered to explain the apparent contradiction (and presumed illegality) of abandoning one form of government and creating another that did not include the members of the original.[b] One explanation was that the Articles of Confederation simply failed to protect the vital interests of the individual states. Necessity then, rather than legality, was the practical factor in abandoning the Articles.[14]

text: According to historian John Ferling, by 1786 the Union under the Articles was falling apart. James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York—they who joined together to vigorously promote a new Constitution—urged that renewed stability of the Union government was critically needed to protect property and commerce. Both founders were strong advocates for a more powerful central government; they published The Federalist Papers to advocate their cause and became known as the federalists. (Because of his powerful advocacy Madison was later accorded the honorific "Father of the Constitution".)[c] Ferling wrote:

text: Rumors of likely secessionist movements were unleashed. There was buzz as well that some states planned to abandon the American Union and form a regional confederacy. America, it was said, would go the way of Europe, and ultimately three or four, or more confederacies would spring up. ... Not only would these confederations be capable of taking steps that were beyond the ability of Congress under the articles, but in private some portrayed such a step in a positive light, in as much as the regional union could adopt constitutions that secured property rights and maintained order.[d]

text: Other arguments that justified abandoning the Articles of Confederation pictured the Articles as an international compact between unconsolidated, sovereign states, any one of which was empowered to renounce the compact at will. (This as opposed to a consolidated union that "totally annihilated, without any power of revival" the sovereign states.)[17] The Articles required that all states were obliged to comply with all requirements of the agreement; thus, permanence was linked to compliance.

text: 'Compliance' was typically perceived as a matter of interpretation by each individual state. Emerich de Vattel, a recognized authority on international law, wrote at the time that "Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the allies fails in his engagements, the other may ... disengage himself in his promises, and ... break the treaty."[17] Thus, each state could unilaterally 'secede' from the Articles of Confederation at will; this argument for abandoning the Articles—for its weakness in the face of secession—was used by advocates for the new Constitution and was featured by James Madison in Federalist No. 43.[e]

text: Some[who?] argued that abandoning the Articles was the same as seceding from the Articles and thus was legal precedent for future secession(s) from the Constitution. St. George Tucker, a jurist in the early republic era, wrote in 1803:

text: And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, we may infer that the right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting partie[s]."[18]

text: Others denied that such a precedent was set; constitutional historian Akhil Reed Amar wrote:

text: The fact that a new union was lawfully formed in the 1780s by secession from the old confederacy did not mean that a new confederacy could be lawfully formed in the 1860s by secession from the old union. ...

text: Writing in 1824, exactly midway between the fall of the Articles of Confederation and the rise of a second self-described American Confederacy, [Chief Justice John] Marshall summarized the issue nicely: "Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."[19]

text: Others[who?] argued the opposite of secession; that indeed the new Constitution inherited perpetuity from the language in the Articles and from other actions done prior to the Constitution. Historian Kenneth Stampp explains their view:

text: Lacking an explicit clause in the Constitution with which to establish the Union's perpetuity, the nationalists made their case, first, with a unique interpretation of the history of the country prior to the Philadelphia Convention; second, with inferences drawn from certain passages of the Constitution; and third, with careful selections from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. The historical case begins with the postulate that the Union is older than the states. It quotes the reference in the Declaration of Independence to "these united colonies", contends that the Second Continental Congress actually called the states into being [i.e., "colonies" no longer], notes the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and ends with the reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives as one of its purposes the formation of "a more perfect Union".[20]

text: Adopting the Constitution[edit]

text: This section is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the Union of the states changed significantly when the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. This action "signaled its decisive break with the Articles' regime of state sovereignty".[21] By adopting a constitution—rather than a treaty, or a compact, or an instrument of confederacy, etc.—that created a new body of government designed to be senior to the several states, and by approving the particular language and provisions of that new Constitution, the framers and voters made it clear that the fates of the individual states were (severely) changed; and that the new United States was:

text: Not a "league", however firm; not a "confederacy" or a "confederation"; not a compact on among "sovereign' states"—all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.[22]

text: Patrick Henry adamantly opposed adopting the Constitution because he interpreted its language to replace the sovereignty of the individual states, including that of his own Virginia. He gave his strong voice to the anti-federalist cause in opposition to the federalists led by Madison and Hamilton. Questioning the nature of the proposed new federal government, Henry asked:

text: The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. ...[23]

text: The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people ...". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[24]

text: Amar specifically cites the example of New York's ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[25] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification".[25] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

text: Amar explains how the Constitution impacted on state sovereignty:

text: In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 – Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.[26]

text: Donald Livingston has written that the Founders themselves held that "the states were republics, but the central government was not," and as such maintained the right to reclaim their sovereignty from "a central government limited to foreign affairs, declaring war, and regulating commerce".[27]

text: Natural right of revolution versus right of secession[edit]

text: Debates on the legality of secession often looked back to the example of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Law professor Daniel Farber defined what he considered the borders of this debate:

text: What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union. The occasional reference to the impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret. They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification. But they equally could have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down. Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than any lack of legal power. The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable.[28]

text: In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution.[29] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

text: I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.[30]

text: Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.

text: During the crisis, President Andrew Jackson, published his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, which made a case for the perpetuity of the Union; plus, he provided his views re the questions of "revolution" and "secession":[31]

text: But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. [emphasis added] To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.[32]

text: Some twenty-eight years after Jackson spoke, President James Buchanan gave a different voice—one much more accommodating to the views of the secessionists and the 'slave' states—in the midst of the pre-War secession crisis. In his final State of the Union address to Congress, on December 3, 1860, he acknowledged his view that the South, "after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union"; but he also drew his apocalyptic vision of the results to be expected from secession:[33]

text: In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.[34]

text: Alien and Sedition Acts[edit]

text: In response to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts—advanced by the Federalist Party—John Taylor of the Virginia House of Delegates spoke out, urging Virginia to secede from the United States. He argued—as one of many vociferous responses by the Jeffersonian Republicans—the sense of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, adopted in 1798 and 1799, which reserved to those States the rights of secession and interposition (nullification).[35]

text: Thomas Jefferson, while sitting as Vice President of the United States in 1799, wrote to James Madison of his conviction in "a reservation of th[ose] rights resulting to us from these palpable violations [the Alien and Sedition Acts]" and, if the federal government did not return to

text: "the true principles of our federal compact", [he was determined to] "sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."[emphasis added][36]

text: Here Jefferson is arguing in a radical voice (and in a private letter) that he would lead a movement for secession; but it is unclear whether he is arguing for "secession at will" or for "revolution" on account of "intolerable oppression" (see above), or neither. Either way, some historians[who?] conclude that his language and acts were broaching the legal edges of treason. Jefferson secretly wrote (one of) the Kentucky Resolutions, which was done—again—while he was holding the office of Vice President. His biographer Dumas Malone argued that, had his actions become known at the time, Jefferson's participation might have gotten him impeached for (charged with) treason.[37] In writing the first Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson warned that, "unless arrested at the threshold," the Alien and Sedition Acts would "necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood". Historian Ron Chernow says of this "he wasn't calling for peaceful protests or civil disobedience: he was calling for outright rebellion, if needed, against the federal government of which he was vice president." Jefferson "thus set forth a radical doctrine of states' rights that effectively undermined the constitution".[38]

text: Jeffersonian Republicans were not alone in claiming "reserved rights" against the federal government. Contributing to the rancorous debates during the War of 1812, Founding Father Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania and New York—a Federalist, a Hamilton ally and a primary author of the Constitution who advanced the concept that Americans were citizens of a single Union of the states—was persuaded to claim that "secession, under certain circumstances, was entirely constitutional."[39]

text: New England Federalists and the Hartford Convention[edit]

text: The election of 1800 showed Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party on the rise and the Federalists declining. The Federalists felt threatened by initiatives taken by their opponents. They viewed Jefferson's unilateral purchase of the Louisiana territory as violating foundational agreements between the original thirteen states—Jefferson transacted the purchase in secret and refused to seek the approval of Congress. The new lands anticipated several future western states that would be—the Federalists supposed—populated by emigrants from the eastern states who likely would be dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The impeachment of John Pickering, a Federalist district judge, by the Jeffersonian dominated Congress and similar attacks on Pennsylvania state officials by the Democratic-Republican legislature added to the Federalists' alarm. By 1804, their national leadership was decimated and their viable base was reduced to the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware.[40]

text: Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts and a few Federalists envisioned creating a separate New England confederation, possibly combining with lower Canada to form a new pro-British nation. Historian Richard Buell, Jr., characterizes these separatist musings:

text: Most participants in the explorations—it can hardly be called a plot since it never took concrete form—focused on the domestic obstacles to consummating their fantasy. These included lack of popular support for such a scheme in the region. ... The secessionist movement of 1804 was more of a confession of despair about the future than a realistic proposal for action.[41]

text: The Embargo Act of 1807 was seen as a threat to the economy of Massachusetts, and, in May 1808, the state legislature debated how the state should respond. These debates generated isolated references to secession, but no definite plot materialized.[42]

text: Federalist party members convened the Hartford Convention on December 15, 1814; they addressed their opposition to the continuing war with England and the domination of the federal government by the 'Virginia dynasty'. Twenty six delegates attended—Massachusetts sent 12, Connecticut seven, and Rhode Island four; New Hampshire and Vermont declined but two counties each from those states sent delegates.[43] Historian Donald R. Hickey noted:

text: Despite pleas in the New England press for secession and a separate peace, most of the delegates taking part in the Hartford Convention were determined to pursue a moderate course. Only Timothy Bigelow of Massachusetts apparently favored extreme measures, and he did not play a major role in the proceedings.[43]

text: The final report addressed issues related to the war and state defense; and it recommended several amendments to the Constitution dealing with "the overrepresentation of white southerners in Congress, the growing power of the West, the trade restrictions and the war, the influence of foreigners (like Albert Gallatin), and the Virginia dynasty's domination of national politics".[44][45]

text: Massachusetts and Connecticut endorsed the report, but the war ended as the delegates were returning to Washington, effectively quashing any good impact the report might have had. Generally, the Hartford Convention was a "victory for moderation", but the timing of events caused the convention to be castigated (by the Jeffersonians) as "a synonym for disloyalty and treason"; all which became a major factor in the sharp decline of the Federalist Party.[46]

text: Abolitionists for secession[edit]

text: By the late 1830s tensions between north and south, already aggravated over tariff disputes, begin to rise ominously over slavery and related issues. Many northerners, especially New Englanders, saw themselves as political victims of conspiracies between slaveholders and western expansionists. They viewed the movements to annex Texas and to make war on Mexico as fomented by slaveholders bent on dominating western expansion—and thereby the national destiny—with 'slave' states and a 'slave' national economy.

text: Historian Joel Sibley wrote of the beliefs held by some leaders in New England:

text: Texas annexation, the abolitionist Benjamin Lundy argued when the issue first arose in 1836, was "a long premeditated crusade—set on foot by slaveholders, land speculators, etc., with the view of reestablishing, extending, and perpetuating the system of slavery and the slave trade"[.] John Quincy Adams had made a similar argument on the floor of the House of Representatives then. Other expressions of the same theme—or accusation—had been heard throughout the decade that followed, whenever Texas was mentioned.[48]

text: Voices demanding separation from the south were beginning (again). In The Liberator of May 1844 with his "Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States," William Lloyd Garrison called for disunion (secession). Garrison wrote: the Constitution was created "at the expense of the colored population of the country"; southerners were dominating the nation—especially representation in Congress—because of the Three-Fifths Compromise; now it was time "to set the captive free by the potency of truth" and to "secede from the government".[49] Coincidentally, the New England Anti-Slavery Convention endorsed the principles of disunion by a vote of 250–24.[50]

text: From 1846, after introduction of the Wilmot Proviso into the public debate, talk in favor of secession shifted to southern voices. Southern leaders' increasing perceptions of helplessness in confronting a powerful political group attacking their interests (and survival) were reminiscent of Federalist alarms at the beginning of the century.

text: South Carolina[edit]

text: During the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-secession movement due to the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" which threatened both South Carolina's economy and the Union. Andrew Jackson also threatened to send federal troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest", became the first US vice-president to resign. On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote of nullification, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."[51] South Carolina also threatened to secede in 1850 over the issue of California's statehood. It became the first state to declare its secession from the Union on December 20, 1860, with the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and later joined with the other southern states in the Confederacy.

text: Confederate States of America[edit]

text: The most famous secession movement was the case of the Southern states of the United States. Secession from the United States was accepted in eleven states (and failed in two others). The seceding states joined together to form the Confederate States of America (CSA). The eleven states of the CSA, in order of secession, were: South Carolina (seceded December 20, 1860), Mississippi (seceded January 9, 1861), Florida (seceded January 10, 1861), Alabama (seceded January 11, 1861), Georgia (seceded January 19, 1861), Louisiana (seceded January 26, 1861), Texas (seceded February 1, 1861), Virginia (seceded April 17, 1861), Arkansas (seceded May 6, 1861), North Carolina (seceded May 20, 1861), and Tennessee (seceded June 8, 1861). Secession was declared by pro-Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky (see Confederate government of Missouri and Confederate government of Kentucky), but did not become effective as it was opposed by their pro-Union state governments. This secession movement brought about the American Civil War. The position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a sovereign nation—and never had been, but that "the Union" was always a single nation by intent of the states themselves, from 1776 onward—and thus that a rebellion had been initiated by individuals. Historian Bruce Catton described President Abraham Lincoln's April 15, 1861, proclamation after the attack on Fort Sumter, which defined the Union's position on the hostilities:

text: After reciting the obvious fact that "combinations too powerful to be suppressed" by ordinary law courts and marshalls had taken charge of affairs in the seven secessionist states, it announced that the several states of the Union were called on to contribute 75,000 militia "...to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed." ... "And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.[52]

text: Dubious legality of unilateral secession[edit]

text: The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[53] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[54] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[53] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[56] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[54][57]

text: Supreme Court rulings[edit]

text: Texas v. White[56] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869.[58] Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

text: Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states". In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.[59]

text: However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[59][60]

text: In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy[61] decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."[59][62]

text: The Union as a sovereign state[edit]

text: Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that "the Union is older than the states" and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union'".[20] Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:

text: In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation". Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation."[20]

text: Texas secession from Mexico[edit]

text: The Republic of Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836 (this, however took the form of outright rebellion against Mexico, and claimed no warrant under the Mexican Constitution to do so). Mexico refused to recognize its revolted province as an independent country, but the major nations of the world did recognize it. In 1845, Congress admitted Texas as a state. The documents governing Texas' accession to the United States of America do not mention any right of secession—although they did raise the possibility of dividing Texas into multiple states inside the Union. Mexico warned that annexation meant war and the Mexican–American War followed in 1846.[63]

text: Partition of a state[edit]

text: Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions provides:

text: The separation referred to is not secession but partition. Some of the movements to partition states have incorrectly identified themselves as "secessionist" movements.

text: Of the new states admitted to the Union by Congress, three were set off from already existing states,[64] while one was established upon land claimed by an existing state after existing for several years as a de facto independent republic. They are:

text:
Vermont was admitted as a new state in 1791[65] after the legislature of New York ceded its claim to the region in 1790. New York's claim that Vermont (also known as the New Hampshire Grants) was legally a part of New York was and remains a matter of disagreement. King George III, ruled in 1764 that the region belonged to the Province of New York.
Kentucky was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1792[66] with the consent of the legislature of Virginia in 1789.[67]
Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it was admitted as a new state in 1820[68] after the legislature of Massachusetts consented in 1819.[67]
West Virginia was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1863[69] after the General Assembly of the Restored Government of Virginia consented in 1862.[70] The question of whether the legislature of Virginia consented is controversial, as Virginia was one of the Confederate states. However, antisecessionist Virginians formed a government in exile, which was recognized by the United States and approved the state's partition. Later, by its ruling in Virginia v. West Virginia (1871), the Supreme Court implicitly affirmed that the breakaway Virginia counties did have the proper consents required to become a separate state.[71]

text: Many proposals to partition U.S. states have been unsuccessful.

text: 1980s–present efforts[edit]

text: The late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen examples of local and state secession movements. All such movements to create new states have failed. The formation in 1971 of the Libertarian Party and its national platform affirmed the right of states to secede on three vital principles: "We shall support recognition of the right to secede. Political units or areas which do secede should be recognized by the United States as independent political entities where: (1) secession is supported by a majority within the political unit, (2) the majority does not attempt suppression of the dissenting minority, and (3) the government of the new entity is at least as compatible with human freedom as that from which it seceded."[72]

text: City secession[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: There was an attempt by Staten Island to break away from New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, leading to a 1993 referendum, in which 65% voted to secede. Implementation was blocked in the State Assembly by assertions that the state's constitution required a "home rule message" from New York City.[73]

text: The San Fernando Valley lost a vote to separate from Los Angeles in 2002. Despite the majority (55%) of the valley within the L.A. city limits voting for secession, the city council unanimously voted to block the partition of the valley north of Mulholland Drive.

text: Other attempted city secession drives include Killington, Vermont, which has voted twice (2005 and 2006) to join New Hampshire; the community of Miller Beach, Indiana, originally a separate incorporated community, to split from the city of Gary in 2007 and Northeast Philadelphia to split from the city of Philadelphia in the 1980s.

text: A portion of the town of Calabash, North Carolina voted to secede from the town in 1998 after receiving permission for a referendum on the issue from the state of North Carolina. Following secession, the area incorporated itself as the town of Carolina Shores. Despite the split, the towns continue to share fire and emergency services.[74]

text: State secession[edit]

text: Some state movements seek secession from the United States itself and the formation of a nation from one or more states.

text:
Alaska: In November 2006, the Alaska Supreme Court held in the case [Kohlhaas v. State] that secession was illegal and refused to permit an initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote. The Alaskan Independence Party remains a factor in state politics, and Walter Hickel, a member of the party, was Governor from 1990 to 1994.[75]
California: California secession, known as #CALEXIT, was discussed by grassroots movement parties and small activist groups calling for the state to secede from the union in a pro-secessionist meeting in Sacramento on April 15, 2010.[76] In 2015, a political action committee called Yes California Independence Committee formed to advocate California's independence from the United States.[77] On January 8, 2016, the California Secretary of State's office confirmed that a political body called the California National Party filed the appropriate paperwork to begin qualifying as a political party.[78][79] The California National Party, whose primary objective is California independence, ran a candidate for State Assembly in the June 7, 2016 primary.[80] On November 9, 2016, after Donald Trump's win in the presidential election, residents of the state caused #calexit to trend on Twitter, wanting out of the country due to his win; they argue that they have the 6th largest economy in the world, and more residents than any other state in the union.[81] 32% of Californians, and 44% of California Democrats were in favor of California secession in a March 2017 poll.[82] The Attorney General of California approved applications by the California Freedom Coalition and others to gather signatures to put #CALEXIT on the 2018 ballot.[83][84]
Florida: The mock 1982 secessionist protest[85] by the Conch Republic in the Florida Keys resulted in an ongoing source of local pride and tourist amusement. In 2015, right-wing activist Jason Patrick Sager[86] called for Florida to secede.[87][88]
Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution, 43–1, that asserted the right of states to nullify federal laws under some circumstances. The resolution also asserted that if Congress, the president, or the federal judiciary took certain steps, such as establishing martial law without state consent, requiring some types of involuntary servitude, taking any action regarding religion or restricting freedom of political speech, or establishing further prohibitions of types or quantities of firearms or ammunition, the constitution establishing the United States government would be considered nullified and the union would be dissolved.[89]
Hawaii: The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has a number of active groups that have won some concessions from the state of Hawaii, including the offering of H.R. 258 in March 2011, which removes the words "Treaty of Annexation" from a statute. As of 2011[update], it had passed a committee recommendation 6–0.[90]
Montana: With the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to hear District of Columbia v. Heller in late 2007, an early 2008 movement began in Montana involving at least 60 elected officials addressing potential secession if the Second Amendment were interpreted not to grant an individual right, citing its compact with the United States of America.[91]
New Hampshire: On September 1, 2012, "The New Hampshire Liberty Party was formed to promote independence from the federal government and for the individual."[92] The Free State Project is another NH based movement that has considered secession to increase liberty. On July 23, 2001, founder of the FSP, Jason Sorens, published "Announcement: The Free State Project", in The Libertarian Enterprise, stating, "Even if we don't actually secede, we can force the federal government to compromise with us and grant us substantial liberties. Scotland and Quebec have both used the threat of secession to get large subsidies and concessions from their respective national governments. We could use our leverage for liberty."[93]
Oregon: Following the 2016 presidential election, two activists submitted a petition for a ballot measure relating to secession from the United States; the activists withdrew the measure shortly afterward, citing recent riots and negative responses.[94][95]
South Carolina: In May 2010 a group formed that called itself the Third Palmetto Republic, a reference to the fact that the state claimed to be an independent republic twice before: once in 1776 and again in 1860. The group models itself after the Second Vermont Republic, and says its aims are for a free and independent South Carolina, and to abstain from any further federations.[citation needed]
Texas Secession Movement: The group Republic of Texas generated national publicity for its controversial actions in the late 1990s.[96] A small group still meets.[97] In April 2009, Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, raised the issue of secession in disputed comments during a speech at a Tea Party protest saying "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that ... My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."[98][99][100][101]
Vermont: The Second Vermont Republic, founded in 2003, is a loose network of several groups that describes itself as "a nonviolent citizens' network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union".[102][103] Its "primary objective is to extricate Vermont peacefully from the United States as soon as possible".[104] They have worked closely with the Middlebury Institute created from a meeting sponsored in Vermont in 2004.[105][106] On October 28, 2005, activists held the Vermont Independence Conference, "the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861".[104] They also participated in the 2006 and 2007 Middlebury-organized national secessionist meetings that brought delegates from over a dozen groups.[107][108][109][110][111]
Republic of Lakotah: Some members of the Lakota people of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota created the Republic to assert the independence of a nation that was always sovereign and did not willingly join the United States; therefore they do not consider themselves technically to be secessionists.[112]
In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, secession petitions pertaining to all fifty states were filed through the White House We the People petition website.[113][114]

text: Regional secession[edit]

text: Pacific Northwest: Cascadia: There have been repeated attempts to form a Bioregional Democracy Cascadia in the northwest. The core of Cascadia would be made up through the secession of the states of Washington, Oregon and the Canadian province of British Columbia, while some supporters of the movement support portions of Northern California, Southern Alaska, Idaho and Montana joining, to define its boundaries along ecological, cultural, economic and political boundaries.[115][116][117][118][119]

text:
Northwest Front: The Northwest Front is a white separatist movement that is advocating for the formation of an independent sovereign republic in the Pacific Northwestern states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and western Montana, that will serve as a "white homeland" for white people throughout the world. The nationalist movement is led by Harold Covington.[120]
League of the South: The group seeks "a free and independent Southern republic"[121] made up of the former Confederate States of America.[122] It operated a short-lived Southern Party supporting the right of states to secede from the Union or to legally nullify federal laws.[123]
Red-State secession / Blue-state secession: Various editorials[124][125] have proposed that states of the USA secede and then form federations only with states that have voted for the same political party. These editorials note the increasingly polarized political strife in the USA between Republican voters and Democrat voters. They propose partition of the USA as a way of allowing both groups to achieve their policy goals while reducing the chances of civil war.[126][127] Red states are states that typically vote for the Republican Party.

text: Polling[edit]

text: A September 2017 Zogby International poll found that 68% of Americans were open to states of the USA seceding.[128] A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 24% of Americans supported their state seceding from the union if necessary; 53% opposed the idea. Republicans were somewhat more supportive than Democrats. Respondents cited issues like gridlock, governmental overreach, the Affordable Care Act and a loss of faith in the federal government as reasons for secession.[129]


document_title: Himachal Pradesh

question_text: number of administrative divisions present in the himachal pradesh

root

text: Himachal Pradesh

text: History[edit]

text: The history of the area that now constitutes Himachal Pradesh dates to the Indus valley civilisation that flourished between 2250 and 1750 BCE.[18] Tribes such as the Koili, Hali, Dagi, Dhaugri, Dasa, Khasa, Kinnar, and Kirat inhabited the region from the prehistoric era.[19]

tag: p

text: During the Vedic period, several small republics known as Janapada existed which were later conquered by the Gupta Empire. After a brief period of supremacy by King Harshavardhana, the region was divided into several local powers headed by chieftains, including some Rajput principalities. These kingdoms enjoyed a large degree of independence and were invaded by Delhi Sultanate a number of times.[18] Mahmud Ghaznavi conquered Kangra at the beginning of the 10th century. Timur and Sikander Lodi also marched through the lower hills of the state and captured a number of forts and fought many battles.[18] Several hill states acknowledged Mughal suzerainty and paid regular tribute to the Mughals.[20]

text: The Kingdom of Gorkha conquered many kingdoms and came to power in Nepal in 1768.[18] They consolidated their military power and began to expand their territory.[18] Gradually, the Kingdom of Nepal annexed Sirmour and Shimla. Under the leadership of Amar Singh Thapa, the Nepali army laid siege to Kangra. They managed to defeat Sansar Chand Katoch, the ruler of Kangra, in 1806 with the help of many provincial chiefs. However, the Nepali army could not capture Kangra fort which came under Maharaja Ranjeet Singh in 1809. After the defeat, they began to expand towards the south of the state. However, Raja Ram Singh, Raja of Siba State, captured the fort of Siba from the remnants of Lahore Darbar in Samvat 1846,[18] during the First Anglo-Sikh War.

text: They came into direct conflict with the British along the tarai belt after which the British expelled them from the provinces of the Satluj.[18] The British gradually emerged as the paramount power in the region.[18] In the revolt of 1857, or first Indian war of independence, arising from a number of grievances against the British,[18] the people of the hill states were not as politically active as were those in other parts of the country.[18] They and their rulers, with the exception of Bushahr, remained more or less inactive.[18] Some, including the rulers of Chamba, Bilaspur, Bhagal and Dhami, rendered help to the British government during the revolt.

text: The British territories came under the British Crown after Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858. The states of Chamba, Mandi and Bilaspur made good progress in many fields during the British rule.[18] During World War I, virtually all rulers of the hill states remained loyal and contributed to the British war effort, both in the form of men and materials. Among these were the states of Kangra, Jaswan, Datarpur, Guler, Rajgarh, Nurpur, Chamba, Suket, Mandi, and Bilaspur.[18]

text: After independence, the Chief Commissioner's Province of Himachal Pradesh was organized on 15 April 1948 as a result of integration of 28 petty princely states (including feudal princes and zaildars) in the promontories of the western Himalayas. These were known as the Simla Hills States and four Punjab southern hill states under the Himachal Pradesh (Administration) Order, 1948 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 (later renamed as the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947 vide A.O. of 1950). The State of Bilaspur was merged into Himachal Pradesh on 1 July 1954 by the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act, 1954.[21]

text: Himachal became a Part 'C' state on 26 January 1950 with the implementation of the Constitution of India and the Lieutenant Governor was appointed. The Legislative Assembly was elected in 1952. Himachal Pradesh became a union territory on 1 November 1956.[18] Some areas of Punjab State— namely Simla, Kangra, Kullu and Lahul and Spiti Districts, Nalagarh tehsil of Ambala District, Lohara, Amb and Una kanungo circles, some area of Santokhgarh kanungo circle and some other specified area of Una tehsil of Hoshiarpur District, besides some parts of Dhar Kalan Kanungo circle of Pathankot tehsil of Gurdaspur District—were merged with Himachal Pradesh on 1 November 1966 on enactment by Parliament of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.[21] On 18 December 1970, the State of Himachal Pradesh Act was passed by Parliament, and the new state came into being on 25 January 1971. Himachal became the 18th state of the Indian Union with Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar as its first chief minister.[18]

text: Geography and climate[edit]

text: Himachal is in the western Himalayas. Covering an area of 55,673 square kilometres (21,495 sq mi),[3] it is a mountainous state. Most of the state lies on the foothills of the Dhauladhar Range. At 6,816 m Reo Purgyil is the highest mountain peak in the state of Himachal Pradesh.[22]

text:
The drainage system of Himachal is composed both of rivers and glaciers. Himalayan rivers criss-cross the entire mountain chain.
Himachal Pradesh provides water to both the Indus and Ganges basins.[23] The drainage systems of the region are the Chandra Bhaga or the Chenab, the Ravi, the Beas, the Sutlej, and the Yamuna. These rivers are perennial and are fed by snow and rainfall. They are protected by an extensive cover of natural vegetation.[23]

text: Due to extreme variation in elevation,  great variation occurs in the climatic conditions of Himachal. The climate varies from hot and subhumid tropical in the southern tracts to, with more elevation, cold, alpine, and glacial in the northern and eastern mountain ranges.[24] The state's winter capital, Dharamsala receives very heavy rainfall, while areas like Lahaul and Spiti are cold and almost rainless. Broadly, Himachal experiences three seasons: summer, winter, and rainy season. Summer lasts from mid-April till the end of June and most parts become very hot (except in the alpine zone which experiences a mild summer) with the average temperature ranging from 28 to 32 °C (82 to 90 °F). Winter lasts from late November till mid March. Snowfall is common in alpine tracts (generally above 2,200 metres (7,218 ft) i.e. in the higher and trans-Himalayan region).

text: Flora and fauna[edit]

text: Himachal Pradesh is one of the states that lies in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), one of the richest reservoirs of biological diversity in the world. The IHR is currently undergoing large scale irrational extraction of wild, medicinal herbs, thus endangering many of its high-value gene stock. To address this, a workshop on ‘Endangered Medicinal Plant Species in Himachal Pradesh’ was held in 2002 and the conference was attended by forty experts from diverse disciplines.[25]

text: According to 2003 Forest Survey of India report, legally defined forest areas constitute 66.52% of the area of Himachal Pradesh.[26] Vegetation in the state is dictated by elevation and precipitation. The state endows with a high diversity of medicinal and aromatic plants.[27] Lahaul-Spiti region of the state, being a cold desert, supports unique plants of medicinal value including Ferula jaeschkeana, Hyoscyamus niger, Lancea tibetica, and Saussurea bracteata.[28][29]

text: Himachal is also said to be the fruit bowl of the country,[30] with orchards being widespread. Meadows and pastures are also seen clinging to steep slopes. After the winter season, the hillsides and orchards bloom with wild flowers, while gladiolas, carnations, marigolds,[31] roses, chrysanthemums, tulips and lilies are carefully cultivated. Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (HPMC) is a state body that markets fresh and processed fruits.[32]

text: Himachal Pradesh has around 463 bird[33] 77 mammalian, 44 reptile and 80 fish species.[34] Great Himalayan National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Pin Valley National Park are the national Parks located in the state.[34][35] The state also has 30 wildlife sanctuaries and 3 conservation reserves.[35]

text: Government[edit]

text: The Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh has no pre-Constitution history. The State itself is a post-Independence creation. It came into being as a centrally administered territory on 15 April 1948 from the integration of thirty erstwhile princely states.[36]

text: Himachal Pradesh is governed through a parliamentary system of representative democracy, a feature the state shares with other Indian states. Universal suffrage is granted to residents. The legislature consists of elected members and special office bearers such as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker who are elected by the members. Assembly meetings are presided over by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's absence. The judiciary is composed of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and a system of lower courts. Executive authority is vested in the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, although the titular head of government is the Governor. The Governor is the head of state appointed by the President of India. The leader of the party or coalition with a majority in the Legislative Assembly is appointed as the Chief Minister by the Governor, and the Council of Ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Council of Ministers reports to the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly is unicameral with 68 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).[37] Terms of office run for 5 years, unless the Assembly is dissolved prior to the completion of the term. Auxiliary authorities known as panchayats, for which local body elections are regularly held, govern local affairs.

text: In the assembly elections held in November 2017, the BJP secured an absolute majority. The BJP won 44 of the 68 seats while the Congress won only 21 of the 68 seats. Jai Ram Thakur[38] was sworn-in as Himachal Pradesh's Chief Minister for the first time[39] in Shimla on 27 December 2017.

text: Administrative divisions[edit]

text: The state of Himachal Pradesh is divided into 12 districts[40] which are grouped into three divisions, Shimla, Kangra and Mandi.[41] The districts are further divided into 69 subdivisions, 78 blocks and 145 Tehsils.[40]

text:
Divisions
Districts[42]

Kangra
Chamba, Kangra, Una

Mandi
Bilaspur, Hamirpur, Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti, Mandi

Shimla
Kinnaur, Shimla, Sirmaur, Solan

tag: table

text:
Administrative Structure[43]

Divisions

3

Districts

12

Tehsils/ Sub-Tehsils

169

Developmental Blocks

78

Urban Local Bodies

49

Towns

59

Gram Panchayats

3226

Villages

20690

Police Stations

127

Lok Sabha Seats

4[44]

Rajya Sabha Seats

3

Assembly Constituencies

68[44]

text: Economy[edit]

text:
Gross State Domestic Product at Current Pricesfigures in crores of Indian Rupees

Year

Gross State Domestic Product

1980

794

1985

1,372

1990

2,815

1995

6,698

2000

13,590

2005

23,024

2006

25,435

2010

57,452

2013

82,585

2014

92,589

2015

101,108

2016

110,511[45]

2017

124,570[46]

2018

135,914[47]

text: The era of planning in Himachal Pradesh started in 1951 along with the rest of India with the implementation of the first five-year plan. The First Plan allocated ₹52.7 million to Himachal Pradesh.[48] More than 50% of this expenditure was incurred on transport and communication; while the power sector got a share of just 4.6%, though it had steadily increased to 7% by the Third Plan.[49] Expenditure on agriculture and allied activities increased from 14.4% in the First Plan to 32% in the Third Plan, showing a progressive decline afterwards from 24% in the Fourth Plan to less than 10% in the Tenth Plan.[49] Expenditure on energy sector was 24.2% of the total in the Tenth Plan.[49] The total GDP for 2005-06 was estimated at ₹254 billion as against ₹230 billion in the year 2004–05, showing an increase of 10.5%.[50] The GDP for fiscal 2015-16 was estimated at ₹1.110 trillion recording an annual growth of 7.7%.[45] As per the advance estimates for fiscal 2016-17, the state's GDP increased to ₹1.247 trillion.[46] The per capita incomes for fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were estimated at ₹130,067 and ₹147,277 respectively.[45][46] The state government's advance estimates for fiscal 2017-18 stated the total GDP and per capita income as ₹1.359 trillion and ₹158,462 respectively.[47] Himachal now ranks one of the highest among the states and union territories of India in terms of per capita income.

text: Himachal Pradesh also ranks as the second best performing state in the country on human development indicators after Kerala.[6] One of the Indian government's key initiatives to tackle unemployment is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The participation of women in the NREGA has been observed to vary across different regions of the nation. As of the year 2009-2010, Himachal Pradesh joined the category of high female participation, recording a 46% share of NREGS (National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) work days to women. This was a drastic increase from the 13% that was recorded in 2006-2007.[51]

text: Agriculture[edit]

text: Agriculture contributes about 9.4% to the net state domestic product.[52] It is the main source of income and employment in Himachal. About 90% of the population in Himachal depends directly upon agriculture, which provides direct employment to 62% of total workers of state.[52] The main cereals grown include wheat, maize, rice and barley with major cropping systems being maize-wheat, rice-wheat and maize-potato-wheat.[53][54] Pulses, fruits, vegetables and oilseeds are among the other crops grown in the state.[53]  Land husbandry initiatives such as the Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project, which includes the Himachal Pradesh Reforestation Project (HPRP), the world's largest clean development mechanism (CDM) undertaking, have improved agricultural yields and productivity, and raised rural household incomes.[55]

text: Apple is the principal cash crop of the state grown principally in the districts of Shimla, Kinnaur, Kullu, Mandi, Chamba and some parts of Sirmaur and Lahaul-Spiti with an average annual production of 5 lakh tonnes and per hectare production of 8 to 10 tonnes.[56] The apple cultivation constitute 49 per cent of the total area under fruit crops and 85% of total fruit production in the state with an estimated economy of ₹3500 crore.[56] Apples from Himachal are exported to other Indian states and even other countries.[57][58] In 2011-12, the total area under apple cultivation was 1.04 lakh hectares, increased from 90,347 hectares in 2000-01.[58] According to the provisional estimates of Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, the annual apple production in Himachal for fiscal 2015-16 stood at 7.53 lakh tonnes, making it India's second largest apple producing state after Jammu and Kashmir.[59]

text: Energy[edit]

text: Hydropower is also one of the major sources of income generation for the state.[60] The state has an abundance of Hydropower resources because of the presence of various perennial rivers. Many high capacity projects are being constructed to capitalize on this. In addition, the rich hydropower resources of Himachal have resulted in the state becoming almost universally electrified with around 94.8% houses receiving electricity as of 2001, as compared to the national average of 55.9%.[61]  The income generated from exporting the electricity to other states is being provided as subsidy to the consumers in the state.[61] Himachal's hydro-electric power production is however yet to be fully utilized.[62] The identified Hydroelectric Potential for the state is 27,436 MW in five river basins[11] and the annual hydroelectricity production in 2016 was 10,351 MW.[62]

text: Tourism[edit]

text: Tourism in Himachal Pradesh is a major contributor to the state's economy and growth. The mountainous state with its Himalayan landscapes attracts tourists from all over the world. Hill stations like Shimla, Manali, Dharamshala, Dalhousie, Chamba, Khajjiar, Kullu and Kasauli are popular destinations for both domestic and foreign tourists.[63] The state also has many important Hindu pilgrimage sites with prominent temples like Naina Devi Temple, Vajreshwari Devi Temple, Jwala Ji Temple, Chintpurni, Chamunda Devi Temple, Baijnath Temple, Bhimakali Temple, Bijli Mahadev and Jakhoo Temple.[64] Manimahesh Lake situated in the Bharmour region of Chamba district is the venue of an annual Hindu pilgrimage trek held in the month of August which attracts lakhs of devotees.[65] The state is also referred to as "Dev Bhoomi" (literally meaning Abode of Gods) due to its mention as such in ancient Hindu texts and occurrence of a large number of historical temples in the state.[66]

text: It is also called the Land of the Gods on account of the Hindu belief that deities like Lord Shiva considered the Himalayas their abode, and much of the state is located among the Himalayan mountains. Although modern pop-literature writers online have often also referred to Uttarakhand as the land of the gods because it also contains Himalayan mountains, officially it is Himachal Pradesh that has been considered the land of the gods since before the state of Uttarakhand existed (the UK as it is abbreviated on license plates for automobiles in the state, and the state was founded in the year 2000).[67] A tourism department board on the road when entering Himachal Pradesh from the state of Punjab states "Welcome to the Land of the Gods."

text: The state is also known for its adventure tourism activities like ice skating in Shimla, paragliding in Bir Billing and Solang valley, rafting in Kullu, skiing in Manali, boating in Bilaspur and trekking, horse riding and fishing in different parts in the state.[68] Shimla, the state's capital, is home to Asia's only natural ice skating rink.[69] Spiti Valley in Lahaul & Spiti District situated at an altitude of over 3000 metres with its picturesque landscapes is an important destination for adventure seekers. The region also has some of the oldest Buddhist Monasteries in Asia.[70]

text: Himachal hosted the first Paragliding World Cup in India from 24 October to 31 October in 2015.[71][72] Venue for paragliding world cup was Bir Billing, which is 70 km from the tourist town Macleod Ganj, located in the heart of Himachal in Kangra District. Bir Billing is the centre for aero sports in Himachal and considered as best for paragliding.[71] Buddhist monasteries, trekking to tribal villages, mountain biking are other activities to do here.

text: Transport[edit]

text: Himachal has three domestic airports in Kangra, Kullu and Shimla districts.[73] The air routes connect the state with Delhi and Chandigarh.

text:
Bhuntar Airport is in Kullu district, around 10 kilometres (6 mi) from district headquarters.
Gaggal Airport is in Kangra district, around 15 kilometres (9 mi) from district headquarters at Dharamshala, which is around 10 kilometres from Kangra
Shimla Airport is around 21 kilometres (13 mi) west of the city.

tag: ul

text: Himachal is known for its narrow-gauge railways. One is the Kalka-Shimla Railway, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and another is the Pathankot-Jogindernagar line.[74] The total length of these two tracks is 259 kilometres (161 mi). The Kalka-Shimla Railway passes through many tunnels, while the Pathankot–Jogindernagar meanders through a maze of hills and valleys. The state also has broad-gauge railway track, which connects Amb and Una (district headquarters of Una district) to Delhi. A survey is being conducted to extend this railway line to Hamirpur.[75] The total route length of the operational railway network in the state is 296.26 kilometres (184.09 mi).[76] Other proposed railways in the state are Dharamsala-Palampur, Baddi-Chandigarh and Bilaspur-Manali-Leh.[77][78]

text: Roads are the major mode of transport in the hilly terrains. The state has road network of 28,208 kilometres (17,528 mi),[79] including eight National Highways (NH) that constitute 1,234 kilometres (767 mi) and 19 State Highways with a total length of 1,625 kilometres (1,010 mi).[79] Hamirpur district has the highest road density in the country.[80] Some roads get closed during winter and monsoon seasons due to snow and landslides. The state-owned Himachal Road Transport Corporation with a fleet of over 3,100,[81] operates bus services connecting important cities and towns with the villages within the state and also on various interstate routes. In addition, around 3,000 private buses run by various operators also ply in the state.[82]

text: Demographics[edit]

text: Population[edit]

text:
showPopulation Growth

CensusPop. %±
19512,386,000—19612,812,00017.9%19713,460,00023.0%19814,281,00023.7%19915,171,00020.8%20016,077,90017.5%20116,864,60212.9%Source:[83]

text:
showLiteracy Rate

CensusPop. %±
197131.96—198142.4832.9%199163.8650.3%200176.4819.8%201183.789.5%Source:[7][84]

text: Himachal Pradesh has a total population of 6,864,602 including 3,481,873 males and 3,382,729 females as per the final results of the Census of India 2011. This is only 0.57 per cent of India's total population, recording a growth of 12.81 per cent.[4][83] The scheduled castes and scheduled tribes account for 25.19 per cent and 5.71 per cent of the population respectively.[85] The sex ratio stood at 972 females per 1000 males, recording a marginal increase from 968 in 2001.[86] The child sex ratio increased from 896 in 2001 to 909 in 2011.[86] The total fertility rate (TFR) per woman in 2015 stood at 1.7, one of the lowest in India.[87]

text: In the census, the state is placed 21st on the population chart, followed by Tripura at 22nd place.[88] Kangra district was top ranked with a population strength of 1,507,223 (21.98%), Mandi district 999,518 (14.58%), Shimla district 813,384 (11.86%), Solan district 576,670 (8.41%), Sirmaur district 530,164 (7.73%), Una district 521,057 (7.60%), Chamba district 518,844 (7.57%), Hamirpur district 454,293 (6.63%), Kullu district 437,474 (6.38%), Bilaspur district 382,056 (5.57%), Kinnaur district 84,298 (1.23%) and Lahaul Spiti 31,528 (0.46%).[89]

text: The life expectancy at birth in Himachal Pradesh increased significantly from 52.6 years in the period from 1970-75 (above the national average of 49.7 years) to 72.0 years for the period 2011-15 (above the national average of 68.3 years).[90] The infant mortality rate stood at 40 in 2010, and the crude birth rate has declined from 37.3 in 1971 to 16.9 in 2010, below the national average of 26.5 in 1998. The crude death rate was 6.9 in 2010.[91] Himachal Pradesh's literacy rate has almost doubled between 1981 and 2011 (see table to right). The state is one of the most literate states of India with a literacy rate of 83.78% as of 2011.[7]

text: Languages[edit]

text: Languages of Himachal Pradesh (2001)[92]

text: Hindi is the official language of Himachal Pradesh and is spoken by the majority of the population as a lingua franca. English is given the status of an additional official language.[5] Most of the languages spoken natively belong to the group of the Himachali languages. According to the 2001 Census of India, the languages spoken in the state in descending order of native speakers are Hindi, spoken by 89.01% of the population (including Himachali languages as dialects of Hindi); followed by Punjabi (5.99%), Nepali (1.16%) and Kinnauri (1.06%).[5]

text: Religion[edit]

text: Religion in Himachal Pradesh (2011)[93]

text: Hinduism is the major religion in Himachal Pradesh. More than 95% of the total population adheres to the Hindu faith, the distribution of which is evenly spread throughout the state.[94] Himachal Pradesh has the highest proportion of Hindu population among all the states and union territories in India.[95]

text: Other religions that form a small percentage are Islam, Sikhism and Buddhism. Muslims are mainly concentrated in Sirmaur, Chamba, Una and Solan districts where they form 2.53-6.27% of the population.[94] Sikhs mostly live in towns and cities and constitute 1.16% of the state population. The Buddhists, who constitute 1.15%, are mainly natives and tribals from Lahaul and Spiti, where they form a majority of 62%, and Kinnaur, where they form 21.5%.[94]

text: Culture[edit]

text: Himachal Pradesh was one of the few states that had remained largely untouched by external customs, largely due to its difficult terrain. With remarkable economic and social advancements, the state has changed very rapidly.[96] Himachal Pradesh is a multireligious, multicultural as well as a multilingual state like other Indian states. Western Pahari languages also known as Himachali languages are widely spoken in the state. Some of the most commonly spoken individual languages are Kangri, Mandeali, Kulvi, Chambeali, Bharmauri and Kinnauri.[97] The Hindu communities residing in Himachal include the Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, Sunars, Kannets, Rathis and Kolis.[98] The tribal population of the state consists mainly of Gaddis, Gujjars, Kanauras, Pangwalas, Bhots, Swanglas and Lahaulas.[98][99]

text: Himachal is well known for its handicrafts. The carpets, leather works, Kullu shawls, Kangra paintings, Chamba Rumals, stoles, embroidered grass footwear (Pullan chappal), silver jewelry, metal-ware, knitted woolen socks, Pattoo, basketry of cane and bamboo (Wicker and Rattan) and woodwork are among the notable ones.[100][101][102] Of late, the demand for these handicrafts has increased within and outside the country.[101] Himachali caps of various colour bands are also well-known art work of the local people, and are often treated as a symbol of the Himachali identity.[103] The colour of the Himachali caps has been an indicator of political loyalties in the hill state for a long period of time with Congress party leaders like Virbhadra Singh always donning caps with green band and the rival BJP leader Prem Kumar Dhumal always wearing a cap with maroon band.[104][105] The former has served six terms as the Chief Minister of the state while the latter is a two-time Chief Minister.[106] Local music and dance also reflects the cultural identity of the state. Through their dance and music, the Himachali people entreat their gods during local festivals and other special occasions.[107]

text: Apart from the fairs and festivals that are celebrated all over India, there are number of other fairs and festivals, including the temple fairs in nearly every region that are of great significance to Himachal Pradesh.[107][108] The Kullu Dussehra festival is very famous all over India.[109] The day to day cuisine of Himachalis is very similar to the rest of the north India with a significant influence of Punjabi and Tibetan cuisines.[110] Lentils (Dāl), rice (Chāwal or Bhāț), vegetables (Sabzī) and chapati (wheat flatbread) form the staple food of the local population.[110] As compared to other states in north India, non-vegetarian food is more preferred and accepted in Himachal Pradesh, partly owing to difficulty in finding a variety of fresh vegetables on the hilly terrain of the state.[111] Some of the local specialities of Himachali cuisine include Siddu, Babru, Khatta, Mhanee, Channa Madra, Patrode, Mah Ki Dal, Chamba Style Fried Fish, Kullu Trout, Chha Gosht, Pahadi Chicken, Sepu Badi, Auriya Kaddu, Aloo Palda, Pateer, Makki Ki Roti and Sarson Ka Saag, Chouck, Bhagjery and Chutney of Til.[111][112]

text: Notable people[edit]

text:
14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile
Dev Anand, Bollywood actor who studied here
Shahid Javed Burki, economist and former vice-president of World Bank
Mohit Chauhan, Bollywood singer
Siddharth Chauhan, independent filmmaker
Prem Chopra
Rubina Dilaik, television actress
Namrata Singh Gujral, American actress
Yami Gautam,  Bollywood actress
Allan Octavian Hume, ornithologist
Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan who studied here
The Great Khali, professional wrestler
Anupam Kher, Bollywood actor
Major Som Nath Sharma, the first recipient of the Param Vir Chakra from the state
Naib Subedar Sanjay Kumar, an Indian Army Junior Commissioned Officer and recipient of the Param Vir Chakra
Captain Vikram Batra, recipient of the Param Vir Chakra
Ram Kumar, abstract artist
Shanta Kumar, member of Lok Sabha
Vijay Kumar, silver medallist in 25m shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Mehr Chand Mahajan, Third Supreme Court Chief-Justice and former chief Minister of Kashmir in 1947,
Jagat Prakash Nadda, member of Lok Sabha and Health Minister of India
Shyam Saran Negi, named as the first voter of independent India
Shivya Pathania, television actress
Karnail Rana, Himachali Folk Singer
Purva Rana, Miss Femina 2012
Kangana Ranaut, Bollywood actress
Idries Shah writer, Sufi teacher and sage
Anand Sharma, member of Rajya Sabha and former Union Cabinet Minister for Commerce and Industry[113] of the Government of India
Anuj Sharma, Bollywood singer
Shriya Sharma, film actress
Pritam Singh, brand ambassador of the state
Sobha Singh, painter
Asmita Sood, television actress
Satyananda Stokes, who introduced apples to the region
Ajay Thakur, gold medallist at the Asian Games and World Cup in 2016
Anurag Thakur, member of Lok Sabha and former President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, former general of Pakistan who studied here
Preity Zinta, Bollywood actress
Shiva Keshavan, Winter Olympian
Adarsh Rathore, Journalist and musician
Ram Swaroop Sharma, Politician
Charlie Chauhan, television actress

text: Education[edit]

text: At the time of Independence, Himachal Pradesh had a literacy rate of 8% - one of the lowest in the country.[114] By 2011, the literacy rate surged to over 82%,[4] making Himachal one of the most literate states in the country. There are over 10,000 primary schools, 1,000 secondary schools and more than 1,300 high schools in the state.[115] In meeting the constitutional obligation to make primary education compulsory, Himachal became the first state in India to make elementary education accessible to every child.[116] Although gender bias in education levels is a prominent issue all over India, Himachal Pradesh is one of the exceptions.[117]  The state has a female literacy rate of around 76%.[118] In addition, school enrollment and participation rates for girls are almost universal at the primary level. While higher levels of education do reflect a gender based disparity, Himachal is still significantly ahead of other states at bridging the gap.[119] The Hamirpur District in particular stands out for high literacy rates across all metrics of measurement.[120]

text: The state government has played an instrumental role in the rise of literacy in the state by spending a significant proportion of the state's GDP on education. During the first six five-year plans, most of the development expenditure in education sector was utilized in quantitative expansion, but after the seventh five-year-plan the state government switched emphasis on qualitative improvement and modernisation of education.[114] In an effort to raise the number of teaching staff at primary schools they appointed over 1000 teacher aids through the Vidya Upasak Yojna in 2001.[114] The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is another HP government initiative that not only aims for universal elementary education but also encourages communities to engage in the management of schools.[121] The Rashtriya Madhayamic Shiksha Abhiyan launched in 2009, is a similar scheme but focuses on improving access to quality secondary education.[121]

text:
The standard of education in the state has reached a considerably high level as compared to other states in India[120] with several reputed educational institutes for higher studies. The Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh University in Shimla, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, Indian Institute of Information Technology Una, Alakh Prakash Goyal University and Baddi University of Emerging Sciences and Technologies are some of the notable universities in the state. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital in Shimla, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College in Kangra, Rajiv Gandhi Government Post Graduate Ayurvedic College in Paprola and Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital in Kumarhatti are the prominent medical institutes in the state. Besides these, there is a Government Dental College in Shimla which is the state's first recognised dental institute.[122] The state government has also decided to start three major nursing colleges to develop the healthcare system of the state.[123] CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalya Palampur is one of the most renowned hill agriculture institutes in the world. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry has earned a unique distinction in India for imparting teaching, research and extension education in horticulture, forestry and allied disciplines. Further, state-run Jawaharlal Nehru Government Engineering College was inaugurated in 2006 at Sundernagar.[123]
Himachal Pradesh also hosts a campus of the prestigious fashion college, National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) in Kangra.

text: Industry[edit]

text: State profile[edit]

text: Source: Department of Information and Public Relations.[124]

text:
Area
55,673 km2

Total population
6,864,602[125]

Males
3,481,873[126]

Females
3,382,729[126]

Population density
123

Sex ratio
972[88]

Rural population
6,176,050[125]

Urban population
688,552[125]

Scheduled Caste population
1,729,252

Scheduled Tribe population
392,126

Literacy rate
83.78%[126]

Male literacy
90.83%[126]

Female literacy
76.60%[126]

Capitals
2

Districts
12

Sub-divisions
62

Tehsils
149

Sub-tehsils
35

Developmental blocks
78

Towns
59

Panchayats
3,226

Panchayat smities
77

Zila parishad
12

Urban local bodies
49

Nagar nigams
2

Nagar parishads
25

Nagar panchayats
23

Census villages
20,690

Inhabited villages
17,495

Health institutions
3,866

Educational institutions
17,000

Motorable roads
33,722 km

National highways
8

Identified hydroelectric potential
23,000.43 MW in five rivers basins i.e. (Yamuna, Satluj, Beas, Ravi, Chenab and Himurja)

Potential harnessed
10,264 MW[45]

Food grain production
1579,000 tonnes

Vegetable production
900,000 tonnes

Fruit production
1,027,000 tonnes

Per capita income
₹158,462 (2017–18)[47]

Social Security pensions
237,250 persons, annual expenditure: over ₹ 600 million

Investment in industrial areas
₹ 273.80 billion, employment opportunities: Over 337,391

Employment generated in government sector
80,000

text: Census 2011-

text:
Largest District (km²)
(1) Lahul and Spiti 13841
(2) Chamba 6522
(3) Kinnaur 6401
(4) Kangra 5739
(5) Kullu 5503

text:
Highest Percentage of Child Population
(1) Chamba 13.55%
(2) Sirmaur 13.14%
(3) Solan 11.74%
(4) Kullu 11.52%
(5) Una 11.36%

text:
Highest Density
(1) Hamirpur 407
(2) Una 338
(3) Bilaspur 327
(4) Solan 300
(5) Kangra 263

text:
Top Population Growth
(1) Una 16.26%
(2) Solan 15.93%
(3) Sirmaur 15.54%
(4) Kullu 14.76%
(5) Kangra 12.77%

text:
Highest Literacy
(1) Hamirpur 100%
(2) Una 87.23%
(3) Kangra 86.49%
(4) Blaspur 85.87%
(5) Solan 85.02%

text:
Highest Sex Ratio
(1) Hamirpur 1050
(2) Kangra 1012
(3) Mandi 1007
(4) Chamba 986
(5) Bilaspur 981


document_title: Brain Damage (song)

question_text: who laughs on dark side of the moon

question_tokens: who laughs on dark side of the moon

text: Brain Damage (song)

text: Composition[edit]

text: When the band reconvened after the American leg of the Meddle tour, Roger Waters brought with him a prototype version of "Brain Damage" along with other songs such as "Money". He had been playing the song during the recording of the Meddle album in 1971, when it was called "The Dark Side of the Moon". Eventually this title would be used for the album itself. The song seemed to be partially inspired by their former band member Syd Barrett who had endured a mental breakdown. After road testing, the new suite entitled "A Piece for Assorted Lunatics", the song was recorded in October along with "Any Colour You Like". The piece represents Waters' association with acoustic-tinged ballads, and along with "If" and "Grantchester Meadows", "Brain Damage" uses a simple melody and delivery. David Gilmour actively encouraged Waters to sing the song, even though at this time he wasn't particularly confident about his vocal abilities.

text: The song is somewhat slow, with a guitar arpeggio pattern similar to the Beatles' "Dear Prudence". It is in the key of D major and features a recurring lyrical pattern and chorus.

text: Themes[edit]

text: Roger Waters has stated that the insanity-themed lyrics are based on former Floyd frontman Syd Barrett's mental instability, with the line "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" indicating that he felt related to him in terms of mental idiosyncrasies. The line "And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes..." references Barrett's behaviour near the end of his tenure with the band; because of his mental problems, there were more than a few occasions where Barrett would play a different song than the rest of the band in the middle of a concert. The song has a rather famous opening line, "The lunatic is on the grass...", whereby Waters is referring to areas of turf which display signs saying "Please keep off the grass" with the exaggerated implication that disobeying such signs might indicate insanity. The lyrics' tongue-in-cheek nature is further emphasised by Waters' assertion in the 2003 documentary Classic Albums: Pink Floyd – The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon that not letting people on such beautiful grass was the real insanity. Waters said that the particular patch of grass he had in mind when writing the song was to the rear of King's College, Cambridge.

text: The German literary scholar and media theorist Friedrich Kittler attaches great relevance to the song, referring to its lyrics as well as to its technological arrangement. For him, the three verses stage the (sound) technological evolution from mono to stereo, culminating in total, "maddening" surround sound.[3]

text: In a 2008 paper in Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges Fusar-Poli and Madini suggest that the song includes avant-garde techniques and philosophical lyrics can be approached and analysed from a psychological perspective. The line "Got to keep the loonies on the path" references the attempt to maintain order and establish sanity. The detached description of a lobotomy is demonstrated in line "You raise the blade, you make the change. You re-arrange me 'till I'm sane". The line "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon", which became a famous metaphor of human irrationality, expresses that madness that is always present but invisible, waiting to be exposed. In Sigmund Freud's terms it would be the unconscious.[4]

text: Versions[edit]

text: Some releases of Dark Side of the Moon, for example TC-SHVL. 804 (cassette, New Zealand release) and Q4SHVL 804(quad LP, UK release) have a different mix of "Brain Damage". During the closing instrumental, beginning at about 3:02, after the second chorus and leading into the final track, "Eclipse", only Peter Watts' "lunatic laughing" is heard, repeatedly, unlike other versions which have the speech sample "I can't think of anything to say", then Peter Watts' laugh and another sample "I think it's nice (ha ha ha)".[citation needed]

text: Personnel[edit]

text:
Roger Waters – bass guitar, lead vocals, tape effects
David Gilmour – electric guitars, harmony vocals
Richard Wright – Hammond organ, VCS3 synthesizer
Nick Mason – drums, tubular bells, tape effects

text: with:

text:
Lesley Duncan – backing vocals
Doris Troy – backing vocals
Barry St. John – backing vocals
Liza Strike – backing vocals

text: The uncredited manic laughter is that of Pink Floyd's then-road manager, Peter Watts.[5]